I just found this today. Chilling words coming directly from the mouth of al Qaeda ... <br><br> LONDON — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the September 11, 2001, terror strikes. <br> Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his conversations with interrogators. <br><br>WOW!<br><br>What an amazing admission that is largely being ignored by the media:<br><br>[color:red][/i]Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans so thoroughly that it could not proceed</font color=red>[/i]<br><br>You've got to wonder what would've happened had Gore (or Kerry) been in office and not Bush. They would've treated this as a law enforcement issue rather than a declared war on the United States, as President Bush treated it.<br><br><br>rest<br><br>***********<br><br>[color:blue]as long as you're ordering double entendres, make mine a large, throbbing one</font color=blue>

True. OR... they may have handled the domestic terror threat just as well if not better, because they weren't so preoccupied with trying to find a way, any way, to get into Iraq.<br><br>It is a postive story, I'm just playing the other side of the coin on your conclusion.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>You've got to wonder what would've happened had Gore (or Kerry) been in office and not Bush. They would've treated this as a law enforcement issue rather than a declared war on the United States, as President Bush treated it.<br><p><hr></blockquote><p>What's the point of criticizing a person for what they might have done in a situation that never happened? Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous to assume what they would have done, or that the event in question would have even happened? There's nothing to base that assumption on. For all we know bush could have ignored a critical piece of information that would have helped prevent 9/11, and at the same time with all the knowledge we have it's just as likely that had someone else been in office al Qaeda would have blown up LA with a nuke. It's just absurd to even start assuming (or even guessing) what would have happened. <br><br>

Agreed...while it's probably a good thing that we supposedly thwarted these plans against Chicago and Los Angeles, I don't think we need to start railing people that aren't even in office (yet)...<br><br>[color:red]You slap my back, I'll slap yours!</font color=red>

What I find absurd is that the administration's critics blame Bush for not doing anything to prevent the attacks. What could he have done that his critics wouldn't have bitched about? They bitch about the Patriot Act now... just imagine if something like that was enacted before 9/11!! Holy moly! Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation!<br><br><br><br>

"3. The Patriot Act is horrible."<br><br>It's certainly not a masterpiece... but how do you prevent terrorism? Can anyone prevent terrorism? Would it have made a difference prior to 9/11?<br><br>My point is that had Bush (or Clinton for that matter) done something prior to 9/11 to prevent an attack, everyone would've flipped out. Back then, an attack on the scale of the WTC was unreal... it just wasn't fathomable at that time. But to prevent an attack that was planned and carried out in the way 9/11 was you'd need something like the Patriot Act. But the Patriot Act is horrible. Well then, what the fsck do you do? How can anyone criticize the administration for doing nothing when doing something would've been horrible?<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>What's the point of criticizing a person for what they might have done in a situation that never happened?<p><hr></blockquote><p>This was a major revalation by a person deep within al Qaeda about the events on September 11th. Where is now the praise for Bush's decisive action? Had it not been for Bush's handling of this, thousands more would've died and every September we'd be planning memorials in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles.<br><br>***********<br><br>[color:blue]as long as you're ordering double entendres, make mine a large, throbbing one</font color=blue>

Well, whatever they did before 9/11 obviously wasn't enough. And i also think the Patriot Act is not a viable solution for prevention. It does too little and costs too much. <br><br>They need to find a non-violent way of counteracting terrorism at the source. Make it hard for them to find recruits, weapons, and money. Increase intelligence and make use of it. In short they need a miracle.<br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.